journal emotional appeals

7/24/2019 Journal Emotional Appeals

1/14


2/14

94 The Journal of Advertising

advertising is needed because most disclaimer studies (e.g.,

Hoy and Stankey 1993; Kolbe and Muehling 1992, 1995;

Muehling and Kolbe 1998; Stern and Harmon 1984) were

conducted 10 or more years ago. The more recent disclaimer

research by Hoy and Andrews (2004, 2006) assessed whether

disclaimers in prime-time advertising adhered to the FTCs

clear and conspicuous standard. Most of these studies used

convenience samples of ads airing in one calendar year duringprime time and/or Saturday mornings on ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Yet nowadays, children are more likely to watch cable net-

works and broadcast television on weekdays, afternoons, early

evenings, and prime time (Connor 2006; Desrochers and Holt

2007). The present study sampled from 2:00 to 10:00 P.M.

on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Pax, UPN, WB, Nickelodeon, and

the Cartoon Network. This study used random selection of

composite weeks including weekdays and weekends covering

nine different months in three different years, resulting in a

sample of 3,893 ads2,000 more ads than in any previous

disclaimer study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

It is important to examine the incidence of disclaimers on

television because it is the primary medium used to advertise

to children. Food products account for up to half of child-

targeted advertising (Desrochers and Holt 2007; Gantz et al.

2007; Harrison and Marske 2005; Warren et al. 2007, 2008).

Few ads depict healthy foods; the products most frequently

advertised to children include candy, snacks, cereal, fast food,

desserts, and soda (e.g., Desrochers and Holt 2007; Folta

et al. 2006; Gantz et al. 2007; Harrison and Marske 2005;

Henderson and Kelly 2005; Powell, Szczypka, and Chaloupka2007). Powell, Szczypka, and Chaloupka (2007) reported

97.8% of the food ads seen by children 2 to 11 years old and

89.4% seen by 12- to 17-year-olds were for products high in

fat, sugar, or sodium.

Childrens Processing and Effects

of Televised Food Advertising

Muehling and Kolbe argued that the childrens advertising

literature has clearly demonstrated over the years that children

process . . . television advertising differently than adults. . . .

their limited vocabularies and language skills as well as theirunderdeveloped cognitive abilities hinder their understanding

of messages designed for a more mature television audience

(1998, p. 37). Maher, Hu, and Kolbe said studies comparing

adults and children suggest that as individuals mature, they

process information in a more complete and thorough manner

(2006, p. 25). Phillips and Stanton (2004) reported that young

and elderly adults had greater purchase intention or persuasion

from ads having product-based appeals (such as convenience,

product performance or benefits, highlighting new product or

features, or highlighting the differences between competing

brands). Thus, it appears that product appeals, rather than

emotional appeals, may lead to greater purchase intention

among adults.

Bonifield and Cole (2007) argued that adults have developed

a complex knowledge system that they can use to mediate ad-

vertisings persuasive efforts. In contrast, children have muchless knowledge than adults, which affects their ability to learn,

problem solve, or use strategies to enhance memory. Bonifield

and Cole conclude that children may not be able to effectively

encode, store or retrieve information (2007, p. 441). Perhaps

this is why Kolbe and Muehling said, empirical studies have

shown that children are less sophisticated than adults in the

way they interact with and process advertisements, suggesting

that advertisers use of some adult-oriented ad techniques may

not be appropriate for younger audiences, and may contribute

to confusion and miscomprehension (1995, p. 78).

The CARU acknowledges that advertisers have special

responsibilities when advertising to children because of theirlimited knowledge, experience and sophistication (CARU

2009, p. 5). Children less than eight years old are psychologi-

cally and cognitively defenseless against advertising, do not

understand its selling intent, and often accept ad claims at

face value (Children, Adolescents and Advertising 2006,

p. 2563). Until about age seven, children naturally attend

to perceptual cues such as animation, visual effects, sound

effects, and jingles that stimulate their senses (Calvert and

Gersh 1987). Kids more naturally focus on and attend to

these cues rather than a disclaimer or product information

(Calvert and Gersh 1987; Ginsburg and Opper 1979; Maher,

Hu, and Kolbe 2006; Piaget 1970; Van Evra 2004). Youngerchildren pay more attention to cues they can process quickly

and holistically, such as the McDonalds golden arches logo,

which do not overwhelm their limited linguistic skills (Van

Evra 2004).

Because younger children can only process a limited number

of cues simultaneously, information is lost when an ad contains

too many stimuli (Gunter, Oates, and Blades 2005). Cues such

as special effects or jingles can distract children from attending

to disclaimers (Roedder 1981). Children may have difficulty

switching their attention from audiovisual effects to an ads

informative elements (Oates et al. 2003; Preston 2000).

Moses and Baldwin (2005) explain how some developingcognitive abilities of children, called executive functions (e.g.,

self-regulation or how well one controls impulses, thinking

ahead, or planning; making decisions based on analysis of

information and options; selective attention; and capacity of

working memory), may make children vulnerable to pleas-

ing, but largely irrelevant, persuasive cues (Gunter, Oates,

and Blades 2005; Kunkel 2001). Preschoolers have the most

limited executive functioning skills, and these skills continue


3/14

Winter 2009 95

to develop until early adulthood. For example, Maher, Hu,

and Kolbe said, a number of studies have shown that older

children are able to recall brand names better than younger

children (2006, p. 24). A younger child with no impulse

control and inadequate memory capacity for storing multiple

stimuli appears most likely to attend to an animated character

in an ad rather than a disclaimer.

Consider how a child might process an ad including anima-tion, an emotional appeal to fun, visual effects, a jingle, and a

disclaimer. That ad may provide information so quickly, and

through so many channels simultaneously, that kids may have

difficulty holding it all in mind (due to their limited working

memory). Younger children may not remember a disclaimer

whether or not distracting elements appear in proximity to it.

Even if teens understand a nutrition disclaimer, they may still

ask for an unhealthy product against their better judgment

(due to their still-developing impulse control and decision-

making skills; Moses and Baldwin 2005).

Developing executive function skills may explain why

childrens short-term food preferences reflect the food adsviewed recently, especially ads using animation and audiovisual

techniques (Goldberg, Gorn, and Gibson 1978). Television ad-

vertising can influence children to make unhealthy food choices

(Children, Adolescents, and Advertising 2006; Contributing

Factors 2007; Halford et al. 2004; ODougherty, Story, and

Stang 2006). Recent studies found a positive association be-

tween the amount of childrens exposure to food advertising on

television and their consumption of advertised foods (Buijzen,

Schuurman, and Bomhof 2008; Dixon et al. 2007).

Production Techniques and Emotional Appeals

Maher, Hu, and Kolbe said that advertisers make extensive use

of production techniques to attract and maintain childrens

interest (2006, p. 23). Animation, visual effects, sound effects,

and jingles are fully within younger childrens capacity for

holistic processing. The more such stimuli are employed in

television ads, the greater the potential for confusion in chil-

drens minds (Van Evra 2004). Kunkel (2001) identified ani-

mation, special effects, and jingles as particularly misleading

production techniques with child audiences. Ji and Laczniak

(2007) argued that animation can generate high levels of at-

tention and product preference among youngsters. Animation

may create unrealistic product performance expectations orexacerbate childrens difficulties in distinguishing between

reality and fantasy.

Ads with special effects increased attention to, excitement

for, positive ratings about, and recall of peripheral product

information. Digital production techniques integrating spe-

cial effects into live action may make it hard for children to

distinguish real characters or situations from imaginary ones.

Ads with such stimuli might mislead younger children who

cannot recognize such techniques (Oates et al. 2003; Preston

2000). The use of fast-paced production techniques makes

it difficult to recall product benefit claims in advertising for

college undergraduates (Bolls, Muehling, and Yoon 2003),

much less children.

Food advertising may also include emotional appeals that

add to childrens difficulty in processing disclaimers. Mood

alteration appeals suggest the product will create positivefeelings, make you happy, or eliminate negative feelings.

Emotional appeals can provide a strong emotional associa-

tion to accompany the holistic processing of visual stimuli.

Fantasy appeals that associate a product with magic, charms,

or spells short-circuited childrens ability to assess realism in

commercials (Barcus 1980). Several content analyses (Folta

et al. 2006; Kunkel and Gantz 1992; Warren et al. 2007,

2008) identified mood alteration or fun/happiness as the most

frequently employed emotional appeal for child-targeted food

products. Connor (2006) reported that 50% of sampled foods

ads (especially fast foods) used animation and fun/happiness

appeals. These ads seldom showed food, instead depictingchildren having fun to develop long-term, positive emotional

associations with food brands.

Other emotional appeals used in food ads associated the

product with athletic ability and being hip or cool (Folta et

al. 2006; Goldberg and Gunasti 2007). For example, Tony the

Tiger claims eating Frosted Flakes Gold is the long-lasting

energy part of a nutritious breakfast that helps you have

energy for sports when you need it most (Kellogg 2008,

p. 1). Or an ad may show cool skateboarders performing

tricks who then consume a food product. Due to childrens

limited processing capacity, emotional appeals represent an-

other type of easily processed stimuli that may divert theirattention from disclaimers. Kunkel and Gantz (1992) found

that emotional appeals, more than health/nutrition appeals,

were more frequently used in food advertisements, even those

for healthy foods.

In sum, past research suggests that ads having multiple

production techniques and emotional appeals may have the

greatest potential for distracting children from attending to

disclaimers. Ads having such appeals and techniques may

make it more difficult for children to attend to or process a

disclaimer or information about product attributes such as

Kelloggs Frosted Flakes Gold has whole grains. Hoy and

Andrews (2004, 2006) argued that music, sound effects,animation, or visual effects may distract viewers from attend-

ing to and recalling disclaimers. They found that nearly all

disclaimers are presented with distractions such as music and

moving visuals.

Consequently, it is important to examine whether food ads

having disclaimers include various types of emotional appeals

and production techniques, especially food ads appearing in

programming directed at children. Advertisers may use a


4/14


combination of production techniques and emotional appeals

to make food ads especially attention getting and persuasive to

children ages 11 and younger (Maher, Hu, and Kolbe 2006).

Certainly this study does not and cannot examine whether

children are actually distracted from processing disclaimers by

production techniques and emotional appeals. Instead, the goal

is to examine whether food ads having disclaimers that air on

child-rated programs actually do include multiple productiontechniques and emotional appeals. If the results suggest child-

directed food ads do have multiple techniques and appeals,

then future experimental research could examine whether,

and possibly how, these techniques and appeals may distract

children of various ages from processing disclaimers.

RQ1: Does food advertising in television programming rated

for children ages 11 or younger (who are targeted in television

programs rated TVY or TVY7) contain more emotional appeals

and production techniques combined than ads in programs rated

for general (TVG or TVPG) or mature audiences (TVPG14

or TVMA)?

Disclaimers or Disclosures

Stern and Harmon defined a disclaimer as a statement or

disclosure made with the purpose of clarifying or qualifying

potentially misleading or deceptive statements made within an

advertisement (1984, p. 13). Common examples include part

of this nutritious breakfast, and some assembly required.

Disclaimers provide consumers with information crucial to an

accurate understanding of the product, including nutritional

information in food advertising.

The FTCs clear and conspicuous standard (Trade Regulation

Reporter 1971) states that disclosures should be presented si-multaneously in an ads video and audio elements. The Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) and the FTC recommend

that advertisers not diminish the effectiveness of disclosures

by placing them in proximity to other attention-getting ad

elements (FCC and FTC 2000). Advertisers should consider the

disclosures intended audience, such as children, to ensure that

youth fully understand it. In a study of preschoolers, correct

verbal responses of the meaning of ad disclaimers increased

with age, yet correct nonverbal responses (e.g., pointing to a

picture of a toy without batteries) did not. Most preschoolers

did not understand what batteries not included and each

sold separately meant (Stutts and Hunnicutt 1987), but couldbetter understand some modified disclaimers (e.g., you have to

put it together instead of some assembly required; Liebert et

al. 1977). Therefore, a disclaimer directed to children should

be stated in easy-to-understand language (Liebert et al. 1977;

Stern and Resnik 1978).

The use of dual-modality balanced breakfast disclaimers

developed due to FTC efforts to counter the negative effects

of sugared breakfast products on childrens health. Present-

ing dual-modality disclaimers that educate children about

nutrition was supported by guidelines from CARU, the

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Code, and the

major television network codes (FTC 1978). For example,

ABCs Advertising Standards and Guidelines from 1986 state

that each commercial for breakfast-type products must in-

clude a simultaneous audio and video reference to the role of

the product within the framework of a balanced meal (ABC1986, p. 6).

CARU also advised advertisers to use child-understandable

language in dual-modality disclaimers. As early as 1982,

CARU noted that the audio disclaimer part of this nutritious

breakfast was insufficient because a more focused visual

reference was needed as well to sufficiently communicate

the message (NARC 2004, p. 37). CARUs guidelines state

that food advertising should encourage responsible use of the

product with a view toward healthy development of the child

(CARU 2009, p. 7).

CARU highlighted these principles in a KFC (2003) case

involving two commercials the advertiser said it did not intendto air on Cartoon Network between 6:00 and 7:00 P.M. One

ad claimed two pieces of its fried chicken have less fat than a

Burger King Whopper while showing a very small super

stating, Comparing edible portions. 2 Original Recipe Breasts

38G fat; Whopper 43G fat (KFC Corporation 2003, p. 2).

Other text-only supers from these two ads were A balanced

diet and exercise are necessary for good health and Not a low

sodium, low cholesterol food (KFC Corporation2003, p. 2).

CARU noted, these disclosures, contained only in small (text)

supers seemed insufficient to counter the impression that fried

chicken is healthful food (KFC Corporation2003, p. 3).

CARUsSelf-Regulatory Guidelines to Childrens Advertisingpublished in 2003 stated that all material disclosures should

be in legible and prominent language that the child can

understand, preferably in both audio and video. Yet CARUs

current guidelines published in 2009 do not state as clearly

and directly that dual-modality disclaimers should be used:

All . . . disclaimers material to children should be under-

standable to the children in the intended audience. . . . Since

children rely more on information presented in pictures than

in words, demonstrative disclosures are encouraged. These

disclosures should be conspicuous in the advertising format

and media used . . . in television, advertisers should use audio

disclosures, unless disclosures in other formats are likely tobe seen and understood by the intended audience (CARU

2009, p. 8).

The Council of Better Business Bureaus and CARU imple-

mented the Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising Initia-

tive (CFBAI) whereby 13 major food and beverage advertisers

have committed to shift the mix of advertising to children

younger than 12 to encourage healthier dietary choices and

lifestyles (Kolish and Peeler 2008). Consequently, over time,


5/14

Winter 2009 97

it appears that self-regulators consistently emphasized that

dual-modality disclaimers are best and advertising can help

to educate children about healthy eating habits.

Dual-modality presentation increases awareness (Morris,

Mazis, and Brinberg 1989), comprehension (Murray, Manrai,

and Manrai 1998), and recall of disclaimers (Barlow and

Wogalter 1993; Morris, Mazis, and Brinberg 1989; Smith

1990). Murray, Manrai, and Manrai (1993) reported thatcollege-age viewers had lower comprehension levels for dis-

closure information versus ad copy. Comprehension increased

from 43% when a text disclaimer was used to 73% when

a dual-modality disclaimer was used. Murray, Manrai, and

Manrai concluded, there is high noncomprehension of . . .

disclosure supers among young adults (1993, p. 163).

Yet studies reveal that most disclosures are not dual modal-

ity. Muehling and Kolbe (1998) reported that 13.7% of ads

in prime time had a dual-modality disclaimer compared with

26.4% on Saturday morning childrens programs. Stern and

Harmon (1984) reported that 9.3% of ads in programs with

significant child viewership had dual-modality disclaimers. Inearlier studies, the use of disclaimers varied from 10% with

a visual or dual-modality disclaimer (Barcus 1975), to 15%

of ads airing after school and 19% of weekend ads having a

disclaimer (Barcus 1977), up to 31% with a visual or dual-

modality disclaimer (Atkin and Heald 1977).

Hoy and Stankey (1993) reported none and Hoy and

Andrews (2004) reported 8.5% of the disclosures in their

prime-time samples were dual modality. In contrast, 550 (or

83.3%) of the disclosures were print or superimposed text only,

whereas eight were audio only. Nearly all (99.5%) of the video

disclaimers and 97% of the audio disclaimers were presented

with distractions such as music or moving visuals. One-thirdof the disclosures had a scene change making it difficult for

adults to attend to or process disclosures.

Muehling and Kolbe (1997) reported that advertising in-

dustry respondents agreed that fine print disclaimers should

not air in child-directed television ads because they do not

appear on the screen long enough for children to read. Indeed,

young viewers who cannot read need to have the super pre-

sented to them in audio as well, although the voice-over . . .

is competing with vivid visual content that keeps the viewer

from hearing the audio content (Maher, Hu, and Kolbe 2006,

p. 30). Hence, short disclosures using simple language that

children can easily understand may help to better informyoungsters (Stewart and Martin 2004, p. 190).

In summary, past research suggests that advertisers may

not always follow the FTC guideline to present disclaimers

in the dual-modality format. Accordingly, it seems warranted

to examine in a large sample whether advertisers appear to be

presenting dual-modality disclaimers, especially in programs

intended for children ages 11 and younger. Research Ques-

tion 2 asks:

RQ2: Does food advertising in television programming rated for

children ages 11 and younger (TVY and TVY7) present more

dual-modality disclaimers than all other types of disclaimers

combined (e.g., audio only, text only, visual or video only, visual

and text, audio and text)?

Past research also suggests that advertisers may distinguish

between child and adult audiences for ads with disclaimers(Muehling and Kolbe 1998). Fewer ads with dual-modality

disclaimers aired in programs rated for general and mature

audiences. Research Question 3 asks:

RQ3: Does food advertising in television programming rated

for general (TVG or TVPG) and mature audiences (TVPG14

or TVMA) present fewer dual-modality disclaimers than all

other types of disclaimers combined?

Finally, it would be helpful to consider which emotional

appeals and production techniques are used in food ad-

vertising that includes disclaimers and airs in child-rated

programming.

RQ4: What types of emotional appeals and production tech-

niques appear most frequently in food advertising that includes

a disclaimer and appears in programming rated for younger

children?

METHOD

A content analysis was conducted to examine the disclaimers,

production techniques, and persuasive appeals featured in U.S.

television food advertisements targeted at child, general, and

mature audiences. To maximize the possibility that children

may have viewed the analyzed ads, programming was recordedfrom 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. (U.S. Central Time). Connor

(2006) reported Saturday morning was once the primary

period for child programs, but now children are more likely

to watch on weekdays. Desrochers and Holt (2007) reported

that children receive less than 5% of their weekly exposure to

advertising on Saturday mornings, with nearly 70% coming

on weekdays and 30% coming in prime time or evenings from

8:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M. Large proportions of children under

age 11 view programs airing during the afternoon, early eve-

ning, and prime time (Nielsen 2000; Rideout, Vandewater,

and Wartella 2003; Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 2005). More

than 97% of exposure to food ads on childrens programs occurson cable networks (Desrochers and Holt 2007), with Cartoon

Network and Nickelodeon accounting for more than 60%

of the Nielsen ratings points for 2-to-11 year olds (Whitney

2005, p. S10).

A sample of programming collected from January to May

2006 for an analysis of food advertising was pooled with a

sample of programming collected from November 2004 to

February 2005. Seven U.S. broadcast television networks


6/14


(ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Pax, UPN, WB) and two cable net-

works (Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon) were sampled

because these outlets have the highest rated or viewed pro-

gramming for children ages 2 through 11 years old (Powell,

Szczypka, and Chaloupka 2007, p. 554). A composite week

of programming was compiled for each network by randomly

selecting and taping days from each of the two television

seasons. Each year in the pooled sample included 504 hoursof programming.

Measures

Food advertisements were the coding and analytical units

for this study. The television programs television rating was

coded and divided into three categories to represent child pro-

gramming (or programs rated TVY rated for children ages six

and younger and TVY7 for programs rated for children ages

seven and above such asSpongeBob SquarePantsor The Fairly

OddParents), general audience programming (rated TVG for

general audiences and TVPG for family audiences but parentalguidance suggested), and mature programming (rated TV14

for parents strongly cautioned as material may be unsuitable

for children under 14 and TVMA, or programs designed for

adults). Therefore, the TVY and TVY7 categories combined

represent child-rated programs.

Sixteen graduate students coded the sampled advertise-

ments. The product type was coded based on past research

and grouped into 12 categories: dairy (milk, cheese, yogurt,

eggs); meat and meat mixtures; bread/pasta (including rice

and other grains); breakfast foods (cereals, waffles/pancakes,

breakfast pastries); fruits/vegetables; snack foods (popcorn,

nuts, pretzels, chips, snack bars); sweets (candy, frozen treats,dessert pastries); convenience entrees and meals; soft drinks

and artificially flavored beverages (sodas, Kool Aid); juices;

pizza/fast-food restaurants; and family-style restaurants. The

major product categories that appeared most frequently in the

sample were generated from this list of 12 categories.

Coders recorded up to three emphasized appeals that were

stated verbally, superimposed as text, or explicitly included

as part of a visual in each advertisement. Consequently, an

appeal that was emphasized in the ad was coded, with a total

of three possible appeals. Appeal categories were based on past

research and divided into two types: product appeals (about

inherent qualities or components of the advertised product)and emotional appeals (suggestions of emotional benefits

directly associated with product consumption). The product

appeals were competitive/unique, premium offers, new, taste/

flavor, nutritional content, convenience, and value for money.

The emotional appeals were mood alteration (e.g., fun, hap-

piness), health/well-being, speed/strength, action/adventure,

achievement/enablement, magic/fantasy, peer acceptance/

superiority, adult approval, appearance, and trickery/deceit.

Appeals were coded in no particular order. If coders agreed

that any specific appeal appeared in an ad, it was counted as

an agreement. If an appeal appeared on one coders data, but

not the others, it was counted as a disagreement.

A dual-modality disclaimer is defined as the first disclaimer

presented simultaneously in the ads audio and visual portions

(or saying part of this nutritious breakfast while showing a

cereal bowl with fruit and orange juice). Simultaneous audioand text-only disclaimers are not defined as dual modality

in this study because child-rated programs are examined.

Younger children cannot read so they cannot understand a

text disclaimer. Past research also suggested many children

and adults are unlikely to understand text disclaimers (Kolbe

and Muehling 1995; Muehling and Kolbe 1997, 1998; Mur-

ray, Manrai, and Manrai 1993).

Coders recorded the presence (coded as 1) or absence (0) of

video, text, and audio in the first disclaimer presented in the

ad, with dual-modality disclaimers having both video and

audio presentation, or video, audio, and text presentation.

Coders also recorded the presence or absence of four typesof salient, sensory cues in each ad: animation, live action

visual effects, sound effects, and product jingles. The total

number of emotional appeals and production techniques

was generated by summing the number of these executional

elements presented in an ad. For example, if an ad included

two emotional appeals (such as mood alteration and magic/

fantasy) and all four production techniques, its score for the

total of emotional appeals and production techniques was six.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences

in the emotional appeals and production techniques in child,

general, and mature audience programs. 2was used to test

the differences in the type and number of disclaimers in childversus other programs.

Reliability Procedures

Coders received 15 hours of training to learn the coding

procedures. The initial training included instruction in the

definitions for each measure and their applications to sample

commercials. Coders then independently rated additional

commercials. Disagreements were discussed and definitions

clarified, if necessary. Once coders achieved acceptable levels

of agreement (exceeding a Scotts of .70), they were given

four hours of programming to code independently, followed bya final reliability check. Then coders were randomly assigned

to overlapping pairs on 20% of the sample. There was total

agreement on program rating. Scotts values for the coder

pairs on other factors were: audio disclaimers (= .92), text

disclaimers (= .80), visual disclaimers (= .99), product

type (= .91), appeals (= .90), animation (= .93), live-

action visual effects (= .85), sound effects (= .71), and

jingles (= .93).


7/14

Winter 2009 99

RESULTS

Of the 3,893 food advertisements airing in programs identi-

fied with a television rating, 1,949 (or 50.1%) had no dis-

claimer, while 8.1% (315) had a dual-modality disclaimer,

and 1,629 (or 41.8%) had another type of disclaimer. Of the

315 food ads including a dual-modality disclaimer, 304 (or

96.5%) aired in child-rated programming (rated TVY or

TVY7), 10 (3.2%) aired in general audience programming

(rated TVG and TVPG), and one (.3%) aired in mature au-

dience programming (rated TV14 and TVMA; see Table 1).

The most frequently advertised food categories in the entiresample were pizza/fast food (27.92%), sweets (15.16%),

breakfast foods (14.44%), family restaurants (9.25%), and

convenience meals/entrees (7.89%). Fruits/vegetables were

the least frequently advertised category (with only 14 ads,

or .4%).

RQ1 asked whether food ads in shows rated for children

ages 11 or younger will contain more emotional appeals and

production techniques than ads in shows rated for general

and mature audiences. An ANOVA revealed that there are

significantly more emotional appeals and production tech-

niques in ads appearing in child-rated programs (M = 2.703,

SD = 1.20), followed by general audience (M = 1.63,SD = 1.02) and mature audience programs (M = 1.46,

SD= 1.04), F(2, 3892) = 432.542,p = .000.

RQ2 asked whether food advertising in television shows

rated for younger children will present more dual-modality

disclaimers than all other disclaimer types combined. The

majority of sampled ads including a dual-modality dis-

claimer (304 of 315) appeared in child programming, 2(2,

N = 3,893) = 741.165,p = .000 (see Table 1). However, of the

661 ads with disclaimers airing in child shows, 304 (or 46%)

were dual modality and 357 (or 54.0%) were another type of

disclaimer. (A one-way 2of the disclaimers in child programs

only was significant [2= 48.38, df = 2,p < .000], with more

ads than expected having a dual-modality disclaimer, and

fewer ads than expected having no disclaimer or another type

of disclaimer.) Nearly all (97%) of the dual-modality disclaim-

ers in child shows appeared in ads for breakfast foods (295 of

304), with just seven (2.3%) in convenience meals and entrees

and two (.7%) in ads for pizza and fast-food restaurants.

Research Question 3 asked whether food ads in televi-

sion programs rated for other (general and mature) audi-ences present all other types of disclaimers more frequently

than dual-modality disclaimers. Food ads in shows rated for

other audiences present all other types of disclaimers more

frequently,2(2,N= 3,893) = 741.165,p = .000, with text-

only disclaimers the most frequently used type (see Table 1).

(A one-way 2for the disclaimers in other programs only was

also significant [2 = 1355.14, df = 2,p < .0001], with fewer

ads than expected including dual modality or no disclaimers

and more ads than expected having another disclaimer type.)

Most dual-modality disclaimers in general and mature rated

programming were for breakfast foods as well (10 of 11, or

90.9%).Research Question 4 asked which emotional appeals and

production techniques in food ads having disclaimers tend to

appear in child programs. To provide a basis for comparison,

the major types of product and emotional appeals used in the

entire sample were tabulated. Five of the six most frequently

used appeals in all sampled food ads were product appeals:

taste/flavor (33.12%, or 2,030 of 6,129 appeals overall), mood

alteration (14.47% or 887; an emotional appeal), new (7.93%

TABLE 1

Type of Disclaimer by Program Rating (N= 3,893 Food Advertisements)

Child program, General audience, Mature audience,

Type of disclaimer TVY and TVY7 TVG and TVPG TV14 and TVMA Totals

Dual modality

Audio and video 287 5 0

Audio, video, and text 17 5 1 Subtotal, dual modality 304 10 1 315 (8.1%)

Other disclaimer type

Text only 214 894 310

Audio only 98 25 2

Audio and text 33 29 10

Video only 11 0 0

Video and text 1 2 0

Subtotal, other 357 950 322 1,629 (41.8%)

No disclaimer in food ad 491 1,148 310 1,949 (50.1%)

Grand totals 1,152 (29.6%) 2,108 (54.1%) 633 (16.3%) 3,893


8/14


9/14

Winter 2009 101

TABLE2

ProductandEmotionalAppealsbyTypeofPrograma

ndDisclaimer(n=6,1

29Appeals)

Childshow,

General,

Mature,

TVYandTVY7

TVGandTVPG

TV14andTVMA

No

Other

Dual

No

Other

D

ual

No

Other

Dual

disclaimer

disclaimer

moda

lity

disclaimer

disclaimer

mo

dality

disclaimer

disclaimer

modality

Totals

Productappeals

Competitive/unique

5

0

0

47

34

0

8

9

0

103

Premium

offer

32

172

34

7

82

3

1

45

0

376

New

62

33

10

165

126

0

53

37

0

486

Quantity

0

3

0

18

31

0

2

6

0

60

Taste/flavor/smell/texture

177

94

189

682

530

7

198

153

0

2,0

30

Nutrition

24

3

14

137

125

1

41

48

1

394

Convenience

13

1

4

105

83

0

24

18

0

248

Value

0

29

0

29

222

0

11

76

0

367

Subtotals

313

335

251

1,1

90

1,2

33

11

338

392

1

4,0

64

Percentageofgrandtotal

5.1

%

5.5

%

4.1%

19.4

%

20.1

%

.2%

5.5

%

6.4

%

.0%

66.3

%

Emotionalappeals

Moodalteration

186

70

45

305

158

0

79

44

0

887

Health/well-being

5

2

0

58

110

0

18

40

0

233

Speed/strength

27

15

46

29

7

1

13

3

1

142

Achievement/enablement

24

9

6

31

59

0

5

22

0

156

Action/adventure

62

49

53

15

11

4

6

2

0

202

Magic

26

23

41

7

11

0

2

1

0

111

Peeracceptance

24

2

4

15

8

0

0

3

0

56

Adultapproval/disapproval

8

5

6

6

2

0

1

3

0

31

Appearance

1

0

0

32

12

0

7

4

0

56

Trickery/deceit

32

26

51

14

2

1

1

0

0

127

Other

8

2

0

37

6

0

7

4

0

64

Subtotals

403

203

252

549

386

6

139

126

1

2,0

65


6.6

%

3.3

%

4.1%

9.0

%

6.3

%

.1%

2.3

%

2.1

%

.0%

33.7

%

Totals

716

538

503

1,7

39

1,6

19

17

477

518

2

6,1

29


11.7

%

8.8

%

8.2%

28.4

%

26.4

%

.3%

7.8

%

8.5

%

.0%


10/14


TABLE3

ProductionTechniquesbyType

ofPrograma

ndDisclaimer(N

=3

,893FoodAdvertisements)

Childshow,

General,

Mature,

TVYandTVY7

TVGandTVPG

TV14andTVMA

Child

Production

No

Other

Dual

show,

No

Other

Dual

No

Other

Dual

Grand

techniques

disclaimer

disclaimer

modality

totals

disclaimer

disclaimer

modality

disclaimer

disclaimer

modality

totals

Percentage

Animation

Yes

306

158

194

658

164

116

2

39

23

0

1,0

02

25.7

4%

No

185

199

110

494

984

834

8

271

299

1

2,8

91

74.2

6%

Totals

491

357

304

1,1

52

1,1

48

950

10

310

322

1

3,8

93

Visualeffects

Yes

342

217

153

712

746

700

9

182

223

0

2,5

72

66.0

7%

No

149

140

151

440

402

250

1

128

99

1

1,3

21

33.9

3%

Totals

491

357

304

1,1

52

1,1

48

950

10

310

322

1

3,8

93

Soundeffects

Yes

287

182

191

660

275

240

7

46

62

0

1,2

90

33.1

4%

No

204

175

113

492

873

710

3

264

260

1

2,6

03

66.8

6%

Totals

491

357

304

1,1

52

1,1

48

950

10

310

322

1

3,8

93

Musicaljingle

Yes

114

91

31

236

155

134

0

49

49

0

623

16.0

0%

No

377

266

273

916

993

816

10

261

273

1

3,2

70

84.0

0%

Totals

491

357

304

1,1

52

1,1

48

950

10

310

322

1

3,8

93


11/14

Winter 2009 103

The self-regulatory system should first be given a chance

to implement these changes. A certain time frame, such as a

year, could be publicized to give advertisers time to respond

to the strong self-regulatory call for change. If advertisers do

not respond, the FTC should enforce the dual-modality guide-

line. It should also enforce the directive that no competing

visuals, special effects, animation, or material unrelated to the

disclosure should appear while the dual-modality disclosure isdisseminated. Alternatively, the guidelines could suggest that

advertisers use the potentially distracting production tech-

niques and emotional appeals to effectively highlight pertinent

product information. Whether accomplished by regulation

or self-regulation, these measures are needed to enhance the

ability of children to understand disclaimers.

The study has several limitations. This content analysis

study cannot and does not purport to examine whether chil-

dren are actually distracted from processing disclaimers due to

production techniques and emotional appeals. The occurrence

of dual-modality and other disclaimers was examined in food

advertising only; we did not examine other types of productsand services. Furthermore, this study did not code whether

the production and persuasive techniques in question appeared

simultaneously or in close proximity to disclaimers. Children

are a significant part of the prime-time television audience, so

it is important to examine this daypart when most Americans

watch. Although child exposure on Saturday mornings has

declined, future research could sample this daypart to exam-

ine whether advertisers are more likely to use dual-modality

disclaimers at that time.

The results also suggest that, if past research is accurate,

younger children may not understand some of the disclaimers

appearing in child-rated programs. Of the 661 food ads withdisclaimers airing in child-rated shows, 214 (or 32.4%) had

text-only disclaimers. Hence, almost a third of all disclaimers

in child shows may not be understood by preschool children

who cannot read or do not have more than a rudimentary abil-

ity to read (Muehling and Kolbe 1998, p. 39). Past research

suggests that small-type disclaimers (e.g., smaller than 1/25 of

screen height; see Hoy and Andrews 2004, 2006) are unlikely

to be readily processed by children. Text-only disclaimers are

difficult even for young adults to process (Murray, Manrai,

and Manrai 1993). Future research should consider how well

children of various ages can process text disclaimers.

In conclusion, it appears that the use of dual-modalitydisclaimers has not increased over the last few decades. Past

research suggesting that advertisers neglect the use of dual-

modality disclaimers is extended by our study to other dayparts

besides prime time and Saturday mornings, and to additional

broadcast networks and cable channels with significant child

audiences. Ironically, it appears that younger children may

potentially have the most difficulty attending to or processing

disclaimers in food advertising airing in child-rated programs.

It is our hope that future research will test this thesis and fu-

ture food advertising will include dual-modality disclaimers

in language that is easy for children to understand.

REFERENCES

ABC (1986),Advertising Standards and Guidelines: Childrens Ad-vertising,American Broadcasting Company Department ofBroadcast Standards and Practices.

Atkin, Charles, and Gary Heald (1977), The Content of ChildrensToy and Food Commercials, Journal of Communication,27(1), 107114.

Barcus, Francis Earle (1975), Weekend Commercial Childrens Televi-sion,Newton, MA: Action for Childrens Television.

(1977), Childrens Television: An Analysis of Programmingand Advertising,New York: Praeger.

(1980), The Nature of Television Advertising to Chil-dren, in Children and the Faces of Television,Edward L.Palmer and Aimee Dorr, eds., New York: Academic Press,273285.

Barlow, Todd, and Michael S. Wogalter (1993), Alcoholic Bever-age Warnings in Magazine and Television Advertisements,

Journal of Consumer Research,20 (1), 147156.Bolls, Paul D., Darrel D. Muehling, and Kak Yoon (2003), The

Effects of Television Commercial Pacing on Viewers At-tention and Memory,Journal of Marketing Communications,9 (1), 1728.

Bonifield, Carolyn, and Catherine Cole (2007), Advertising toVulnerable Segments, in The Sage Handbook of Advertising,Gerard J. Tellis and Tim Ambler, eds., Los Angeles: Sage,430444.

Buijzen, Moniek, Joris Schuurman, and Elise Bomhof (2008),Associations Between Childrens Television Advertising

Exposure and Their Food Consumption Patterns: A House-hold Diary-Survey Study,Appetite,50 (2/3), 231239.

Calvert, Sandra L., and Tracey L. Gersh (1987), The SelectiveUse of Sound Effects and Visual Inserts for Childrens Televi-sion Story Comprehension,Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology,8 (4), 363374.Centers for Disease Control (2007a), Childhood Overweight and

Obesity, available at www.cdc.gov/Nccdphp/Dnpa/Obesity/Childhood/Index.htm (accessed March 20, 2008).

(2007b), Contributing Factors, available at www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/contributing_factors.htm (accessedMarch 20, 2008).

Children, Adolescents and Advertising: American Academy of

Pediatrics Committee on Communications Policy Statement(2006),Pediatrics,118 (6), 25632569.Childrens Advertising Review Unit (CARU) (2003),Self-Regula-

tory Guidelines for Childrens Advertising,7th ed., New York.(2009),Self-Regulatory Program for Childrens Advertising,

9th ed., New York: CARU, available at www.caru.org/guidelines/guidelines.pdf (accessed May 21, 2009).

Connor, Susan (2006), Food-Related Advertising on PreschoolTelevision: Building Brand Recognition in Young Viewers,

Pediatrics, 118 (4), 14781485.


12/14


Desrochers, Debra M., and Debra J. Holt (2007), ChildrensExposure to Television Advertising: Implications for Child-hood Obesity,Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,26 (2),182201.

Dixon, Helen G., Maree L. Scully, Melanie A. Wakefield, VictoriaM. White, and David A. Crawford (2007), The Effects ofTelevision Advertisements for Junk Food Versus NutritiousFood on Childrens Food Attitudes and Preferences,Social

Science and Medicine, 65 (7), 13111323.Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) (2000), Joint FCC/FTC Policy Statementfor the Advertising of Dial-Around and Other Long-DistanceServices to Consumers, Federal Register,65, no. 137, 117.

Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection(1978), FTC Staff Report on Television Advertising to Children,Washington, DC: GPO.

Folta, Sara C., Jeanne P. Goldberg, Christina Economos, Rick Bell,and Rachel Meltzer (2006), Food Advertising Targeted atSchool-Age Children: A Content Analysis,Journal of Nutri-tion Education and Behavior, 38 (4), 244248.

Gantz, Walter, Nancy Schwartz, James R. Angelini, and Victoria

Rideout (2007), Food for Thought: Television Food Adver-tising to Children in the United States, Menlo Park, CA:Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ginsburg, Herbert, and Sylvia Opper (1979),Piagets Theoryof Intellectual Development, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Goldberg, Marvin E., and Kunta Gunasti (2007), Creating anEnvironment in Which Youths Are Encouraged to Eat aHealthier Diet,Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,26(2), 162181.

, Gerald J. Gorn, and Wendy Gibson (1978), TV Messagesfor Snack and Breakfast Foods: Do They Influence ChildrensPreferences?Journal of Consumer Research,5 (2), 7381.

Gunter, Barrie, Caroline Oates, and Mark Blades (2005),Advertis-ing to Children on TV: Content, Impact, and Regulation,Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Halford, Jason, Jane Gillespie, Victoria Brown, Eleanor Pontin,and Terence Dovey (2004), Effect of Television Advertise-ments for Foods on Food Consumption in Children,Appetite,42 (2), 221225.

Harrison, Kristen, and Amy L. Marske (2005), NutritionalContent of Foods Advertised During the TV ProgramsChildren Watch Most, American Journal of Public Health,95 (9), 15681574.

Henderson, Vani R., and Bridget Kelly (2005), Food Advertisingin the Age of Obesity: Content Analysis of Food Advertisingon General Market and African American Television,Journalof Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37 (4), 191196.

Hoy, Mariea G., and John C. Andrews (2004), Adherence ofPrime-Time Televised Advertising Disclosures to the Clearand Conspicuous Standard: 1990 Versus 2002, Journal of

Public Policy and Marketing, 23 (2), 170182., and (2006), Entertainment Industry Ratings

Disclosures and the Clear and Conspicuous Standard,Journalof Consumer Affairs,40 (1), 117143.

, and Michael Stankey (1993), Structural Characteristicsof Televised Advertising Disclosures: A Comparison withthe FTC Clear and Conspicuous Standard, Journal of Ad-vertising,22 (2), 4758.

Ji, Mindy F., and Russel N. Laczniak (2007), Advertisers Imple-mentation of CARU Guidelines for Advertising Targeted atChildren,Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,29 (2), 2738.

Kellogg Company: Frosted Flakes Gold(2008), Childrens Advertis-ing Review Unit (CARU) Case No. 4898 (August 11).

KFC Corporation(2003), CARU Case No. 4122 (December 4).Kolbe, Richard H., and Darrel D. Muehling (1992), A Content

Analysis of the Fine Print in Television Advertising,Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,14 (2),4761.

, and (1995), An Investigation of the Fine Printin Childrens Television Advertising,Journal of Current Issues

and Research in Advertising,17 (2), 7795.Kolish, Elaine D., and C. Lee Peeler (2008), Changing the Land-

scape of Food and Beverage Advertising: The Childrens Foodand Beverage Advertising Initiative in Action. A Progress Re-

port on the First Six Months of Implementation: JulyDecember2007,Arlington, VA: Council of Better Business Bureaus,available at www.bbb.org/us/storage/16/documents/CFBAI/ChildrenF&BInit_Sept21.pdf (accessed May 21,2009).

Kunkel, Dale (2001), Children and Television Advertising,inHandbookof Children and the Media, Dorothy G. Singerand Jerome L. Singer, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,375393.

, and Walter Gantz (1992), Childrens Television Ad-vertising in the Multichannel Environment, Journal ofCommunication,42 (3), 134152.

Liebert, Diane E., Joyce N. Sprafkin, Robert M. Liebert, and Eli

A. Rubinstein (1977), Effects of Television CommercialDisclaimers on the Product Expectations of Children,

Journal of Communication,27 (1), 118124.Maher, Jill K., Michael Y. Hu, and Richard H. Kolbe (2006),

Childrens Recall of Television Ad Elements: An Examina-tion of Audiovisual Effects,Journal of Advertising,35 (1),2333.

McGinnis, J. Michael, Jennifer Appleton Gootman, and VivicaI. Kraak, eds. (2006), Food Marketing to Children and Youth:Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC: Institute ofMedicine.

Morris, Louis A., Michael B. Mazis, and David Brinberg (1989),Risk Disclosures in Televised Prescription Drug Advertis-ing to Consumers,Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,8 (1), 6480.

Moses, Louis J., and Dare A. Baldwin (2005), What Can theStudy of Cognitive Development Reveal About ChildrensAbility to Appreciate and Cope with Advertising?Journalof Public Policy and Marketing,24 (2), 186201.

Muehling, Darrel D., and Richard H. Kolbe (1997), Fine Printin Television Advertising: Views from the Top,Journal of

Advertising,26 (3), 115.


13/14

Winter 2009 105

, and (1998), A Comparison of Childrens andPrime-Time Fine-Print Advertising Disclosure Practices,

Journal of Advertising,27 (3), 3748.Murray, Noel M., Lalita A. Manrai, and Ajay K. Manrai (1993),

Public Policy Relating to Consumer Comprehension ofTelevision Commercials: A Review and Some EmpiricalResults,Journal of Consumer Policy,16 (2), 145170.

, , and (1998), How Super Are VideoSupers? A Test of Communication Efficacy,Journal of Public

Policy and Marketing,17 (1), 2434.National Advertising Review Council (NARC) (2004), White

Paper: Guidance for Food Advertising Self-Regulation,avail-able at www.narcpartners.org/reports/NARC_White_Paper_6-1-04.pdf (accessed March 20, 2008).

Nielsen Media Research, Inc. (2000), 2000 Report on Television,New York: Nielsen.

Oates, Caroline, Mark Blades, Barrie Gunter, and Jacquie Don(2003), Childrens Understanding of Television Advertis-ing: A Qualitative Approach, Journal of Marketing Com-munications,9 (2), 5971.

ODougherty, Maureen, Mary Story, and Jamie Stang (2006),

Observations of ParentChild Co-Shoppers in Supermar-kets: Childrens Involvement in Food Selections, ParentalYielding, and Refusal Strategies, Journal of NutritionalEducation and Behavior, 38 (3), 183188.

Phillips, Diane M., and John L. Stanton (2004), Age-RelatedDifferences in Advertising: Recall and Persuasion,Journalof Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,13 (1),720.

Piaget, Jean (1970), Genetic Epistemology, Eleanor Duckworth,trans., New York: Columbia University Press.

Powell, Lisa M., Glen Szczypka, and Frank J. Chaloupka (2007),Exposure to Food Advertising on Television Among U.S.Children,Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161

( June), 553560., , , and Carol L. Braunschweig (2007),

Nutritional Content of Television Food AdvertisementsSeen by Children and Adolescents in the United States,

Pediatrics,120 (3), 576583.Preston, Chris (2000), Are Children Seeing Through ITC Ad-

vertising Regulations? International Journal of Advertising,19 (1), 315.

Rideout, Victoria J., Elizabeth A. Vandewater, and Ellen A.Wartella (2003), Zero to Six: Electronic Media in the Lives of

Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers,Menlo Park, CA: KaiserFamily Foundation.

Roberts, Donald F., Ulla G. Foehr, and Victoria J. Rideout (2005),Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds,MenloPark, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Roedder, Deborah L. (1981), Age Differences in ChildrensResponses to Television Advertising: An Information-Processing Approach,Journal of Consumer Research,8 (2),144153.

Smith, Sandra J. (1990), The Impact of Product Usage Warningsin Alcohol Beverage Advertising,Journal of Public Policy

and Marketing,9 (1), 1629.Stern, Bruce L., and Robert R. Harmon (1984), The Incidence

and Characteristics of Disclaimers in Childrens TelevisionAdvertising,Journal of Advertising,13 (2), 1216.

, and Alan J. Resnik (1978), Childrens Understandingof a Televised Commercial Disclaimer, inResearch Frontiersin Marketing: Dialogues and Directions,Subhash C. Jain, ed.,Chicago: American Marketing Association, 332336.

Stewart, David W., and Ingrid M. Martin (2004), Advertis-ing Disclosures: Clear and Conspicuous or Understood

and Used?Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,23 (2),183192.

Stutts, Mary A., and Garland G. Hunnicutt (1987), Can YoungChildren Understand Disclaimers in Television Commer-cials?Journal of Advertising,16 (1), 4146.

Trade Regulation Reporter (1971), Clear and Conspicuous Disclo-sure,Chicago: Commerce Clearing House (CCH 7569.09),12, 166.

Van Evra, Judith (2004), Television and Child Development,3rd ed.,Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Warren, Ron, Jan LeBlanc Wicks, Robert H. Wicks, IgnatiusFosu, and Donghung Chung (2007), Food and BeverageAdvertising to Children on U.S. Television: Did National

Food Advertisers Respond?Journalism and Mass Communica-tion Quarterly,84 (4), 795810.

, Robert H. Wicks, Jan LeBlanc Wicks, Ignatius Fosu, andDonghung Chung (2008), Food and Beverage Advertisingon U.S. Television: A Comparison of Child-Targeted VersusGeneral Audience Commercials,Journal of Broadcasting andElectronic Media,52 (2), 231246.

Whitney, Daisy (2005), For Kids TV, Every Day Is Saturday,Advertising Age, 76 (8), S10.


14/14

journal emotional appeals

Documents